Decisión estadística

Mme o r t he bu m s H Is le s shou mn g NmmEo s i te s outuit h Sco tur no R gL

17

in various ways, have encouraged the growth of certain plants near their settlements to make gathering easier. It is a short step - although a revolutionary one - from gathering the seeds to eat to purposely sowing them in a prepared patch of land, or even to clear part of the surrounding forest to enable this to happen. The clearing of the forests may have been deliberate, although it would have been easier to use natural clearings, or those produced by the grazing of their animals preventing the growth of young saplings (Halliday 1993; 73-75). The ploughing or pasturage of these areas required a permanent settlement at the site so the fields could be cared for throughout the year, although hunting would still continue at longer distances away from these sites on a seasonal basis.

The permanent nature of these settlements would also bring up the question of supply. Although they may have traded for goods with new occupants of an old site for particular items (Clark 1974; 241), the nomadic hunters could supply basically all of their needs from their seasonal trips around the country, and were probably self-sufficient in this respect. The farming communities had less flexibility and although hunting continued it may have been in a more circumscribed area, thus reducing the access to required materials. Stone suitable for the manufacture of tools was very important in early prehistory and Scotland has few deposits of flint or suitable substitutes. Arran pitchstone and Rum bloodstone were good alternatives and are found in mainland sites as well as other islands, although these sites are mainly on the west coast (Wickham-Jones 1994; 66-67, 71). The reduced mobility of the settlements meant that either excursions would have to be sent out to look for suitable stone, or stone would have to be bartered from the people who did have it or access to it. It is from such a basis that early trade would form, as evidenced by the spread of finished or unfinished stone axe heads from Tievebulliagh (Antrim, Northern Ireland), Great Langdale (Cumbria), and Graig Llywd (Clywd, North Wales) which are widely distributed (see Fig.4). These could have been special presents between people, or specifically bartered, perhaps several times thus spreading them further away from their original source (Clark 1974; 248-9: Piggot 1982; 30).

MRONflLDSfly 1> ( Pflpfl WESTRAY o SAMDflY ROUSfiy E D R Y LO CH O F H A R R A Y LOCH OF STENMEi n o IN L A N D SCRPfl FLOW BURRRY S.RONBLOSRY

1 KNAP OF HOWAR b 5K R R R BARE

z

3 6ROUQW

or

4 ftUCKOUOy 9 PARES HOWE

5 aoRNESS

n p p OF SITES IN O r k n e y

1 8

A nomadic lifestyle precludes the use of articles that are easily broken so it is not until the advent of the permanency of farming that we see pottery being introduced. Much of this could have been made locally, although pottery found in the Solway-Clyde area indicates a link to Ireland, which is very close to the coastline here (Laing & Laing 1993; 30). Pottery can be useful in providing clues to links between areas through characteristic shapes of the items, and the designs incised or painted onto them, i.e. typology, thus Ulster type pottery has been traced specifically to Aberdeenshire (Piggot 1982; 30) where there may have been an immigration of some people from Ireland bringing the distinctive pottery with them. Yorkshire pottery has also been found generally up the east coast as far north as the Moray Firth, alongside long barrow burial chambers of a type also found in Yorkshire (Piggot 1982; 28). Although such links cannot tell us how the items of pottery, or the designs of the tombs, came to be transferred outwith their places of origins, it does indicate some sort of connection, in the case of Yorkshire possibly over a fairly long time.

Archaeology suggests that the Neolithic population of the country was spread widely over the land in small scattered settlements. Cooperation, at local levels at least, between these people is shown in the existence of monumental structures such as stone circles and chambered tombs which would take a lot of coordinated effort to build. Such cooperation over an extended period of time can only have been possible with the settling of hunters into regular seasonal patterns associated with farming and more permanent modes of settlement. The villages of Skara Brae, c.3100-2500bc(Clarke & Maguire 1989; 18), and Knap of Howar,

about 5000 years old (MacSween & Sharp 1989; 25), in Orkney were in use around the time of the construction of Maes Howe around 3000bc (Ashmore 1988; 5) (see fig.5). These

coastal villages may have been involved in its construction which, in common with many prehistoric monuments, shows the sensitivy of the inhabitants to the changing seasons as the interior is lit only in the evening of midwinter's day. A similar understanding of the changing weather patterns throughout the year is applicable to sea travel.

19

fertile soils and suitable climate. Such considerations are very important to the farmers, so whereas Mesolithic settlement was fairly widely scattered, although always close to water such as rivers or lochs, small farming communities were scarce in areas like the west coast hills where the soil was poor and the weather wet, and concentrated in more amenable coastal strips and river valleys (Crawford 1987; 28-30). Farming was initially introduced during a period of climatic optimum with higher average temperatures and greater humidity than at present, about 6000-3500bc (McGrail 1987; 259), which would probably have aided its establishment, and maximised the available area that could be cultivated. The next two thousand years saw a fluctuating climate so some more marginal lands may have, on occasion, fallen out of use, thus putting more pressure on the lower-lying arable lands already cleared. The resulting change in population distribution would have strained any existing social structures as would any continuing immigration from other areas of Britain or Europe. Such people arrived from the Netherlands and lower Rhine region bringing with them the distinctive ’Beaker' style of pottery which gave them their name (Piggot 1982; 49).

It was immigrants like the Beaker People who also brought with them the new bronze technology.

As with most farming-based societies, wealth may have been shown by the quantity and quality of land or livestock owned. Metal-working introduced wealth through ownership of high quality goods or the ores required to make such metals. Scotland had resources of copper and gold ores, the gold long prized as a metal for making high quality goods. Copper itself, like gold, is a soft, malleable metal, but the addition of tin makes it into bronze and suitable for weapons and other items needing a hard metal and sharp edge. Tin ore does not occur in Scotland, the nearest supply point is Cornwall which became an important source of the ore for a large part of Europe. Contact with the south west of Britain would have had to be maintained to secure a supply of the ore, even if through middle-men, although some bronze may have come into Scotland as scrap from elsewhere before being reused. The decorative similarities found on some gold artefacts show a link between Ireland and Scotland in the Bronze Age, but there is little evidence in general of firm links between areas of the

20

British Isles in early prehistory (Laing & Laing 1993: 31). The available metal ores of

Scotland could, along with other commodities such as hides, have been part of a reciprocal trade with regions with other commodities unavailable in Scotland. Control of the important ores would be guarded by the people in whose land they were found, and add to their wealth, and it is perhaps through the protection of such areas that tribal groups could have been formed, although culturally and linguistically similar groups would, presumably, stay in close contact.

Although metal-working and the exchange of goods that developed around it was important, the basic way of life would change little. Small communities, perhaps of a few families, concentrating on farming and hunting would still be the main means of living. Some cooperation in building and trade were neccessary, but settlements remained fairly scattered across the land. Communication, it may be supposed, was principally by water, especially over longer distances, and some coastal communities could have developed a specific role in trade by becoming bases for redistribution. At Jarlshof communication was kept with the mainland islands of Britain. The first Neolithic settlers imported items such as steatite bowls. The evidence of bronze moulds found at Jarlshof show similarities to some found at Traprain Law, implying the smith was either from Ireland, or had a connection with someone from Ireland (Megaw & Simpson 1992; 292). Some areas, such as the south west of Scotland, may even have maintained closer contact with the people of the Isle of Man or Ireland than of the hinterland as it was easier to travel by boat than overland.

The ability to smelt iron allowed people to produce a metal that was ideal for making strong fastenings for boats of all types, as well as ’improved’ weapons and tools. The Iron Age also saw a new social development in the building of defensible settlements. The east coast and southern Lowlands of Scotland typically have small settlements, of perhaps up to twenty houses, or farmsteads of one or two buildings housing a large family on its own (Breeze 1982; 36-37), that were surrounded by a wooden fence and ditch. These defences were more suitable for keeping out animals than a determined human, and although some

21

important sites may have had better defences, the majority remained without. Hillforts were

especially common in south eastern Scotland probably being the focus of power within an area, and as such were well defended, occupying a prestigious site, a hiltop, which although not particulary convenient could overlook a large part of the surrounding country as well as be seen easily itself.

On the western and northern shores of Scotland the more typical defensive structure was of stone construction, principally because of the lack of timber in those areas. Duns and brochs are related structures; both of stone construction involving a surrounding wall. In fact, their similarities are such that in some circumstances they are very difficult to classify as one or the other. Generally duns are regarded as an area surrounded by a stone wall, with buildings within the enclosure. Duns may also be promontories cut off by a wall, with cliffs and water providing the remaining defences. Some of these can be very large in area and similar to hillforts whereas some are so small that they may only have been used as lookouts of as shelter in times of danger.

Brochs are generally regarded as being of a much more massive construction than duns. Basic brochs are two dry stone walls, bound together by horizontal courses of flat stone, in a circle with a single entrance where the wall-base is massive relative to the area enclosed (Megaw & Simpson 1992; 469). There may have been stairs in the hollow wall linking the ground with the upper timber floors (Laing & Laing 1993; 77). Due to their massive construction and height brochs are traditionally seen as seats of local power dominating the landscape, yet they are too frequently spaced within the landscape to fit this idea comfortably. The few excavations of brochs have yet to uncover any major weapon finds, most evidence so far points to their being the centre of agricultural communities (Fojut 1982: Harding 1984; 215; Armit 1992; 49 & 124; Laing & Laing 1993; 79). Many brochs are sited in coastal locations and appear to provide defence against potential seaborne attack, but these areas may also be important agricultural regions, especially on islands where peat can cover upland areas. The coastal location was important as the sea provided as source of

22

food etc. for the community, but it does not appear to have been the most important factor in many areas.

Brochs provide passive defence: once inside the defenders have to wait for the raiders to go before they can leave the shelter of the broch. Whilst the inhabitants were hiding in the broch, said raiders could leisurely starve or smoke the defenders out of the tower whilst having free access to all their stock and supplies left outwith the defences (Armit 1992; 48). In Fojut's examination of the Shetland brochs he found no chain of intervisibility between the brochs that might have provided mutual defence at least to the brochs closest to the attack site (1982; 41). Brochs did apparantly have a role to play in the control of the territory and resources they overlooked. Brochs developed in a time where the pressures on the land were increasing. The population was growing at a time when the climate was beginning to deteriorate causing more marginal land to become agriculturally unusable, and causing the formation of peat in the wetter areas. The increasing pressures on limited resources may

have caused a threat of conflict within certain areas, and the development of monumental architecture was a response showing control of a certain area of land (Armit 1992; 125). Broch builders in different regions would have had different priorities to those in other regions. Some builders may have thought proximity to their agricultural land the greatest priority whereas others saw the provision of shelters or lookouts on rocky knoll and promontories as their priority. The architecture of brochs may be similar over a wide area, but the location in different regions depended upon the role assigned by the local inhabitants (Harding 1984; 212).

The sea was an important factor to the inhabitants of the brochs in that it provided a highway for trade and communication as well as a resource. Brochs were built in the Northern Isles, W estern Isles and north west mainland in areas lacking plentiful supplies of

timber. The timber for items such as flooring would have to have been brought from elsewhere by sea. This communication may have been one method by which the constructional ideas for brochs were disseminated across a large area (Harding 1984; 208).

23

There may also have been trade between brochs for items more plentiful in one area than another (Fojut 1982; 50-51). In a circumscribed area such as Shetland such exchange possibly even reduced the need for defences as the people were known to each other, although this may also work conversely in that people may attack to gain control of a resource they did not possess.

Brochs and duns were probably a development of roundhouses during the mid to late first millenium bc within the patterns of the devlopment of the local settlement sequence

(Armit 1992; 125: Laing & Laing 1993; 78-79). The brochs themselves were a form of architecture built for only a few centuries, but many of them continued to be reused. Some sites have clear advantages and were reused for many centuries for many structures, such as Dunollie at the entrance to Oban Bay, and Dunstaffnage at the entrance to Loch Etive. Equally other sites appear not to have had any obvious advantage, but the site itself may be of historical significance before the building of the broch or subsequent construction. Some brochs developed villages around them in later periods, such as that at Gurness, Orkney, although others remained on their own within the landscape.

The development of the many types of defended structures found in Scotland reinforces the suggestion that there was a building of tensions bewteen people of different areas, or within an area. These tensions may have been partly due to an increase in the population of Scotland during the Iron Age, as well as a deteriorating climate making some marginal land unusable. This would have increased the pressures on the same amount, or less, of cleared farmland, and may, at least partially, help to explain the development of separate tribes fighting over control of this farmland. Another possible reason is the division of people into the groups that helped each other construct the massive architecture seen during the Iron Age. The cooperation would also have been necessary in the construction of crannogs.

24

by water (Barber & Crone 1993; 520). Beyond that definition there are many variations in construction, function, location and date that makes it impossible to set up a typology using these variants as a guide. Two crannogs next to each other can look totally different, yet be of a similar date and conversely two similar crannogs can be centuries apart in date. Crannogs are found in virtually any site that has, or had, shallow water surrounding it at one time, for example sea lochs, rivers and estuaries as well as inland freshwater lochs, ponds and marshes (Morrison 1985; 60). There are a very large number of known crannogs in the lochs and estuaries of Scotland, but very few have been excavated and dated as yet.

The available dates of crannogs (Table 1) show that they have a long lifespan as a building type, for example Buiston crannog has dates ranging from AdIO-120 to Ad605-665

(Barber & Crone 1993; 529). Their use was commented upon in the seventeenth century, when they were still important enough from a military perspective to be noted for the government, and some have been used since by anglers and wildfowlers as well as being the sites of illicit stills away from the prying eyes of the exciseman. There is note of them being built in the sixteenth century when a large crannog was built for Lachlan Mor Mackintosh's campaign in Loch Lochy, although smaller examples may also continued to have been built, but were not regarded as significant enough to warrant comment (Morrison 1985; 22-23).